Ex Parte Gioscia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

13563331 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/563,331 07 /31/2012
22879 7590 07/29/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Gioscia
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83016450 1427
EXAMINER
MUSLEH, MOHAMAD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD GIOSCIA, PHILLIP BRYAN,
MICHAEL CHRISTIAN RYNER, and GIOVANNI MATAMAGANA1
Appeal2015-000751
Application 13/563,331
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of claims 1-16 as anticipated by Sajid
(US 2012/0211377 Al; published. Aug. 23, 2012). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a computing device accessory comprising a first
cover segment (110, 112, 130) having an exterior surface and an inner
surface with a recessed region (132) to receive a base of a tablet computing
1 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. is identified as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-000751
Application I3/563,33 I
device, a second cover segment (120) extending from the first cover segment
and having a plurality of foldable panels (122, I24, I26), a magnetic
component (I 46) provided with the first cover segment and positioned to
actively retain the tablet computing device, wherein the exterior surface of
the first cover segment includes a raised structure (128, 440), and wherein an
edge of one of the plurality of foldable panels is configured to abut the
raised structure in one or more stable positions (independent claim I, Figs.
IA-IC and 4A--4C). Appellants also claim a covered tablet computing
device assembly (independent claim 6) and a cover for a tablet computing
device (remaining independent claim I I) having the same or similar
limitations.
A copy of representative claim I, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
I. A computing device accessory comprising:
a first cover segment including an inner surface and an
exterior surface, the inner surface including a recessed region to
receive a base of a tablet computing device;
a second cover segment extended from the first cover
segment, the first and second cover segment forming a binder-
style case for the tablet computing device, the second cover
segment including a plurality of foldable panels; and
a magnetic component provided with the first cover
segment, the magnetic component being positioned to actively
retain the tablet computing device when the base of the tablet
computing device is received in the recessed region;
wherein the exterior surface of the first cover segment
includes a raised structure, and wherein an edge of one of the
plurality of foldable panels is configured to abut the raised
structure in one or more stable positions.
2
Appeal2015-000751
Application 13/563,331
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to identify any disclosure in
Sajid of the limitation required by each independent claim "wherein the
exterior surface of the first cover segment includes a raised structure, and
wherein an edge of one of the plurality of foldable panels is configured to
abut the raised structure in one or more stable positions" (see, e.g., App. Br.
9-10, Reply Br. 5---6).
Appellants' argument is persuasive.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that element 1620 in Figure 16
of Sajid corresponds to the raised structure and that an edge of one of Sajid's
foldable panels is configured to abut the raised structure as claimed (Final
Action 2-3). However, as correctly explained by Appellants, Sajid merely
discloses that element 1620 is a keyboard sleeve and, in any event, does not
disclose that an edge of one of Sajid's foldable panels is configured to abut
sleeve 1620 in a stable position as claimed (App. Br. 9-10).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that "figures 16-17 clearly show
that an edge of one of the plurality of foldable panels [for an example
element 1758] is abutting the raised structure [1702] in one or more stable
positions [fig. 17a shows element 1702 in a stable position]" (Ans. 3
(brackets in original)). Appellants convincingly argue that this finding also
is erroneous. Specifically, Appellants explain that element 1702 is a tablet
panel rather than a raised structure on the exterior surface of a first cover
segment as claimed, that the tablet panel 1702 at best corresponds to the
claimed first cover segment, and that Sajid contains no disclosure of the
limitation in question (Reply Br. 5---6).
3
Appeal2015-000751
Application 13/563,331
For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of anticipation. We do not sustain, therefore, the § 102 rejection of
claims 1-16.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
4